Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Attaching Exhibit A as I would like some validation that this email consitutes indeed a draft defence. If not; i might need to tone down my argument. Exhibit A. Draft Defence Redacted.pdf
    • Appreciate your swift input and amendments! I've reworded some of it (and will likely reformat the page a bit before printing to make it neater) but I've included the majority of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. Would you recommend I email this to the individual who declined the compensation as well as sending it by post? Cheers Switch2 - Letter of Claim v3.pdf
    • I suggest (change in red) -   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [car reg no]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6. The Claimant is claiming an unlawful amount of interest.  The dispute between the parties concerns a disputed, unpaid invoice, issued on 6 January 2025, on which it is written "Payment to be made by 06-Feb-2025".  Yet the Claimant is claiming interest from 4 January 2025.  7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Okay. That sounds a lot better. Hopefully you now realise that the third party rights act only applies if you have used a parcel broker but you are trying to sue the courier company directly. So because you contracted directly with the courier, you are going to sue them directly. By using insurance or prohibited items or non-compensation lists, they are seeking to exclude or limit liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care – and of course this is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and in fact the insurance that they pressurise you to purchase amounts to a secondary contract under section 72 of the Act because it is a prohibited secondary contract which is attempting also to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care. The prohibited items list is an unfair term as you have already pointed out. Even more significantly here not only are they saying that it is prohibited – but they are saying this despite the fact that they were very happy to take your money in respect of insurance. These people are stupid and dishonest. But also now they will abuse the County Court system by making you jump through the hoops because it costs them scarcely anything at all to use up the County Court system because it is a publicly funded taxpayer resourced system of justice. They don't use this to obtain justice. They use this simply as a means of debt avoidance to try and frustrate their customers legitimate claims.   Okay I've made a few amendments – and also I've added a further head of damage for unfair trading which could give you a next your little bit of money and also an extra little bit of leverage. Please have a look. See if you are happy with it. If you want to take anything away. If you want to add anything. If there is anything which is incorrect – and post up the final draft here please for a last look.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Hello, can you help me! I have second agreement for an Assured Short hold Tenancy :

1. Term of Tenancy

 

The Landlord lets to the Tenant the Premises for a period of 6 months. The Tenancy shall start on and include the 26th March 2010 and shall end on and include the 25th September, 2010, but subject to clause 10.4.

 

 

Rent and any other monies payable under this Agreement until the Term expires, or the Premises are re-let, whichever is earlier.

 

Tenant’s Break Clause

 

10.4The Tenant may determine the Tenancy at any time after the expiration of the first Six (6) months by giving to the Landlord or his Agent not less than two (2) calendar months’ prior written notice of its desire and up to the time of determination (which for the avoidance of doubt will not be earlier than six months from the commencement date of this Agreement) pays the rent and reasonably performs the obligations on his part contained in this Agreement, then on the expiration of the notice the Tenancy shall cease and determine but without prejudice to the rights and remedies of either party against the other in respect of any antecedent claim or breach of obligation.

 

 

But I wish to end it at the end of the term (25th September, 2010) and gave my landlord 2 month notice (in writing) for it on 30/06/10. He saying that I still have to live in the flat for another 2 month after the end of agreement, pointing out to the Break Clouse 10.4 :

your agreement clearly states end of 25th September 2010 plus 10.4 where both parties can give 2 months notice AFTER the 25th September 2010: earliest contractual end date being 25th November 2010.(from his letter)

 

and that the first agreement do not count towards 6 month after which I can give 2 month notice for leaving any time. Is he right?

Many thanks.

Edited by nazar10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you sign this second agreement, and was this break clause on it?

As far as i'm aware the first one stands, so you could leave on the 24th Sept and not owe a penny or give any notice

Unless someone comes along with anything different (ive been away a while so not au fait with current rental laws) tell him you will move out on the 24th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your LL is talking rubbish, though whether he's devious or deluded isn't quite clear.

 

Your Tenancy Agreement is badly worded, he's picked it up from somewhere and doesn't understand it. You have signed a six month agreement. It ends on 25th September. If it were allowed to carry on past that date, THEN you would have to give ONE month's notice (that's the law, he can't make you sign away a right in law). Actually, you didn't have to give notice at all to move out on 25th September.

 

That raises the matter of deposit. Did you pay one? Has he protected it? Will he try and withhold it on this excuse (hence my question of whether he is being devious)? If you answer three "Yes-es" then the dispute resolution service will sort it out.

 

Presumably this second agreement came into force at the end of a first 6 month's tenancy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...